• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

War/military action against North Korea predictions

Is US military action against North Korea imminent?

  • No. Kim Jong Un will calm down or Obama will ignore him.

    Votes: 35 66.0%
  • North Korea will be hit with US air, drone and missle strikes.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • A full land invasion of North Korea by US forces is coming soon.

    Votes: 1 1.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 17 32.1%

  • Total voters
    53
I always want the the troops to have the best equipment, but there's a practical side to this as well. I don't deny the F-22s superiority over anything else that flies these days, but in terms of dollars vs benefits I just don't see the value, its an air superiority fighter at at time when in our current wars we have air superiority by default meaning we don't even have to fight for it. Plus you have the fact that an F-22 costs about 5 times more than an F-15C, Apache was right about the designation, now does an F-22.

Its an amazing piece of equipment that's for sure but I don't know if I see it as being worth the taxpayer dollars that went into it.

What makes you think we have air superiority by default? Because we are able to establish it against crap nations like Libya or Iraq while only losing a couple of pilots?

China and Russia both have 5th Gen fighters, as well as some pretty bad-a-- SAMs.
 
Very true. Trust me. I fly UAVs for a living.

Predators and the like don't look like they are designed for hard maneuvering or very low level flight, but they sure do look like they are optimized for loiter time. Look very similar to a glider with a motor strapped to it at least wing wise.
 
What makes you think we have air superiority by default? Because we are able to establish it against crap nations like Libya or Iraq while only losing a couple of pilots?

China and Russia both have 5th Gen fighters, as well as some pretty bad-a-- SAMs.

Thats why I said current wars.
 
I could be in the minority, but does anyone seriously believe that Obama would enter into a war with Korea, regardless of the provocation with the exception of a nuclear strike on a major American city?

There's no way to prove it, but if Obama had been President on 9/11, the US would not have gone to war in Afghanistan, whether you think the US should or should not have done so.
 
What makes you think we have air superiority by default? Because we are able to establish it against crap nations like Libya or Iraq while only losing a couple of pilots?

China and Russia both have 5th Gen fighters, as well as some pretty bad-a-- SAMs.

The fact that the most powerful military on the planet cannot advance beyond a mere statemate, in over a decade, against an enemy that has no air force, no navy and a rag tag, at best, army should make you question our Afghanistan battle plan. Question, as well, why we, the US taxpayers, supply 70% of Afghanistan's GDP.
 
I could be in the minority, but does anyone seriously believe that Obama would enter into a war with Korea, regardless of the provocation with the exception of a nuclear strike on a major American city?

There's no way to prove it, but if Obama had been President on 9/11, the US would not have gone to war in Afghanistan, whether you think the US should or should not have done so.

I will have to disagree. President Obama is very conscious of polls. After 9/11 the American people wanted blood. There is no doubt in my mind that we would have retaliated and attacking the Taliban in AFG was the logical move. The war would have been handled in an entirely different manner and we would have never gone to Iraq, but we still would have even in AFG.

If KJU performs an attack, the US will be forced to respond. If they just continue with threats, I do not think that the President will do anything in a military sense, with the exception of some show of force. He is already doing that, as he should.
 
Kim Jong Un has IMHO already done enough to justify a US military response. He's pointed missiles at American bases in Japan and Guam. He cut the line that allows emergency communications between North and South Korea. Last year he fired missiles at a South Korean residitial area killing innocent civilians seemingly for no other reason than to look tough/crazy. Before his rise to power his father ignored the international community and has successfully proliferated nuclear weapons, weapons Junior now possesses. Under treaty agreements, military actions against South Korea are considered attacks on the United States of America. Un has publically stated a state of war exists between North South Korea, translation: he declared war against America under US treaty obligations. The question is will he come to his senses and back up and/or will president Obama spank that A and treat North Korea as part axis of evil or ignore him? My observation is Obama talks a good game of peace and love when it comes to playing nice with homocidal maniacs but still kicks butt most of the time.

Not sure if I should even say this but I heard on relatively good authority troops scheduled for deployment in Afghanistan have had their orders cancelled 'in case they're needed elsewhere.' A new type of naval sea to surface battle ship never used before is now parked off the coast of North Korea.

And I heard from a reliable source that you like mudkipz. The Korean war never ended, we just have a mutual ceasefire. I don't think Jong Un dumb enough to give up a good thing, because they know they won't win another round of combat with us.
 
And I heard from a reliable source that you like mudkipz. The Korean war never ended, we just have a mutual ceasefire. I don't think Jong Un dumb enough to give up a good thing, because they know they won't win another round of combat with us.

Was WAR ever actually declared? If not, I don't believe a formal peace treaty must be signed either.
By that token, we can re-initiate hostilities with Granada, any time as there was no peace treaty. Was there a peace treaty with Iraq?

But, I certainly agree that KJU does not really want to fight. He is just ronrey
 
And I heard from a reliable source that you like mudkipz. The Korean war never ended, we just have a mutual ceasefire. I don't think Jong Un dumb enough to give up a good thing, because they know they won't win another round of combat with us.

Maybe he's naive enough to think he can saber rattle non stop and we'll never take him seriously. I hope it doesn't come to it be it looks likely at this point forgetting we might be a little concerned about his nukes. One good thing is he's seemed to have shut his mouth after seeing the US military build up off his coast.
 
Last edited:
Was WAR ever actually declared? If not, I don't believe a formal peace treaty must be signed either.
A formal armistice ceasing hostilities was signed 27 July 1953. It postponed hostilities "until a final peaceful settlement is achieved." A final settlement has not yet been achieved, and therefore, the South and the North are still formally at war.

Formal declarations of war died in the 40's with the changing face of global politics, and are no longer necessary.
 
Maybe he's naive enough to think he can saber rattle non stop and we'll never take him seriously. I hope it doesn't come to it be it looks likely at this point forgetting we might be a little concerned about his nukes. One good thing is he's seemed to have shut his mouth after seeing the US military build up off his coast.

They always do.
 
Yeah, I'm far from panic mode over the latest threats from NK. I am not, however, as blaise about it as I have been in the past. For one thing, NK has already attacked the South militarily since Un took over, a real shooting skirmish with real casualties. What was his "punishment" for this aggression? Nothing. Nada. Nein.

Now he has gone so far as to declare war on the US and SK (yeah, yeah, I know, formally a state of war has existed for 60 years) and threaten to use nukes. I think it's possible that his military leadership, which quite frankly runs the North, having been deprived of substantitive outside news, is arrogant and ignorant enough to think that it's brilliant plan will actually work, that they can nuke Seoul, instantly take out the US presence, then march through the South unopposed.

That isn't true, of course. We'd wipe the peninsula with them... but we'd still have hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dead people in a sea of green glass.

So, do we sit back and wait for the bomb to drop? Do we pre-emptively take out their nuclear capacity (which makes more sense now in NK than it ever did in Iraq)? Or do we just yawn and mumble, "another day, another idle threat"?

I don't know, and I'm glad I don't have to decide. I do know that I'm more uncomfortable about the future of the two Koreas now than I ever have been in my lifetime. Something feels... I dunno... a bit more ominous and real at the moment. Hope I'm wrong.
 
A formal armistice ceasing hostilities was signed 27 July 1953. It postponed hostilities "until a final peaceful settlement is achieved." A final settlement has not yet been achieved, and therefore, the South and the North are still formally at war.

Formal declarations of war died in the 40's with the changing face of global politics, and are no longer necessary.

Yes, I knew it was something like that. But thank you for finding the actual quote. My point remains. After this many years of a cease fire, any resumption of hostilities would have to be considered "new" and not a continuation.

Formal Declaration of War died with the (Unconstitutional)War Powers Act.
 
I should have been clearer, what I meant was that the F-22 doesn't give us any edge because we've already achieved total air superiority over any enemy we are likely to fight. Its like trying to improve upon perfection you just can't do it. Now I know there is no such thing as perfection war but for the cost of what the program was we really didn't gain much in the realm of air superiority because already totally dominant that field. Plus you can achieve more with few F-15 than you can with an F-22 and you get the F-15s for cheaper.

The F-22 program cost us what? 66 billion dollars or there abouts, and we got 185 planes out of it, plus you have future maintenance costs which cannot be calculated yet but I haven't seen any estimates. I think we could have got better bang for our buck with F-15s.

But I'm glad you do agree with me that the F-35 is a total flop.

bwhahaha F-35's (A-B-C) are not a total flop. https://www.f35.com/news-events/top-issues.aspx
 
Well that would be a one dimensional perspective.

I would consider that one of those "no fail" categories of weapons development, or hell of any government spending. An estimated 400 billion dollars just to fill the projected order and a possible 1.45 TRILLION over the lifetime of the aircraft. The initial estimate was 1 trillion over the life time of the aircraft, an increase of 50% before the damn thing has even been truly put into the active force.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/28/business/lockheed-criticized-by-f-35-jet-program-chief.html?_r=0

Exclusive: U.S. sees lifetime cost of F-35 fighter at $1.45 trillion | Reuters
 
Yeah, I'm far from panic mode over the latest threats from NK. I am not, however, as blaise about it as I have been in the past. For one thing, NK has already attacked the South militarily since Un took over, a real shooting skirmish with real casualties. What was his "punishment" for this aggression? Nothing. Nada. Nein.

Now he has gone so far as to declare war on the US and SK (yeah, yeah, I know, formally a state of war has existed for 60 years) and threaten to use nukes. I think it's possible that his military leadership, which quite frankly runs the North, having been deprived of substantitive outside news, is arrogant and ignorant enough to think that it's brilliant plan will actually work, that they can nuke Seoul, instantly take out the US presence, then march through the South unopposed.

That isn't true, of course. We'd wipe the peninsula with them... but we'd still have hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dead people in a sea of green glass.

So, do we sit back and wait for the bomb to drop? Do we pre-emptively take out their nuclear capacity (which makes more sense now in NK than it ever did in Iraq)? Or do we just yawn and mumble, "another day, another idle threat"?

I don't know, and I'm glad I don't have to decide. I do know that I'm more uncomfortable about the future of the two Koreas now than I ever have been in my lifetime. Something feels... I dunno... a bit more ominous and real at the moment. Hope I'm wrong.

My best guess is ... NK really depends on China, and they know it. So far, China has kept supporting NK, because they didn't want to run the risk of a destabilization of the peninsula, which may well cause political unrest or massive humanitarian problems, including fugitives at the Chinese border.

But the Chinese have been considering for a while already if NK is really worth the trouble, especially because trade relations to the US are much more important (and to SK increasingly too). So it's probably only a matter of time until the Chinese decide Un is really not worth this trouble and drop him.

Hell, it's a wonder this silly country has not collapsed all on its own by now.

Maybe the next American trade delegation to China can simply ask if they get NK as a bonus, in exchange for a really good deal or something. ;)
 
On second thought....

CNN) -- North Korea on Tuesday demonstrated its commitment to its controversial nuclear program, saying that it plans to restart a reactor at its main atomic complex that it agreed to shut down in 2007.

North Korea says it plans to restart shuttered nuclear reactor - CNN.com

This came in around the same time that they said they planned to re-start their nuclear reactor. ;)

North Korean leader dials down hostile rhetoric.....

North Korea's leader appeared to tamp down hostile rhetoric that had threatened impending war with the United States and South Korea in a key speech published on Tuesday that implied the isolated country was shifting its focus to development.

But the speech delivered on Sunday by Kim Jong-un focused on how nuclear capability supported economic development although it accused the United States of seeking to drag North Korea into an arms race in a bid to hinder its economic improvement.

"It is on the basis of a strong nuclear strength that peace and prosperity can exist and so can the happiness of people's lives," Kim said in the speech delivered to the central committee meeting of the ruling Workers Party of Korea and published in full on Tuesday.

Threats from North Korea have prompted the United States to beef up its forces on the peninsula and station a warship off the Korean peninsula overnight.

The North has promised its citizens that it would become a strong and prosperous nation and is moving towards celebrations of the April 15 birthday of its founder Kim Il-sung, the grandfather of the current leader.

"The fact that this was made at the Party central committee meeting, which is the highest policy setting organ, indicates an attempt to highlight economic problems and shift the focus from security to the economy," said Yang Moo-jin of University of North Korean Studies in Seoul.....snip~

North Korean leader dials down hostile rhetoric
Reuters – 5 hrs ago<<<<< more here!
 
I'm not trying to predict what WILL happen... too many variables.

All I'm saying is that the risk of Kim Jong Un doing something the West would consider Irrational is real, and that NK missle/nuke capabilities may be more serious that many believe due to covert military aid from other nations.

That, and that it may not be as obvious to Un that he'd be defeated or nuked as people around here think it is.
 
I'm not trying to predict what WILL happen... too many variables.

All I'm saying is that the risk of Kim Jong Un doing something the West would consider Irrational is real, and that NK missle/nuke capabilities may be more serious that many believe due to covert military aid from other nations.

That, and that it may not be as obvious to Un that he'd be defeated or nuked as people around here think it is.

Heya Goshin
hello.gif
I think some were saying that if all were laughing at him and didn't take him seriously. That Un might take that personal like and then react in some way towards South Korea.

Here is some of what the Chinese are saying.

Last month's announcement that the United States would strengthen its anti-missile defenses due to the North's threats also elicited only relatively mild criticism from China.

"All these new actions from the U.S. side are not targeted at China," said Ni Lexiong, a military expert at the Shanghai University of Political Science and Law.

Another well-connected Chinese military expert, speaking on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of discussing Chinese defense policy, said China believed the U.S. presence in Korea acted as a necessary restraint on troublesome Pyongyang, hence the lack of criticism from Beijing.

Chinese internet sites are resounding with criticism not of the United States but of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, who is derided as "Fatty Kim" or "Fatty The Third", in reference to his father and grandfather, both previous rulers of the pariah state.

Blame is mostly being put on Kim for leading his country to disaster and the region close to war.

"Fatty Kim, while you are playing games, your people are starving to death," wrote one user on the popular Twitter-like microblogging site Sina Weibo, blaming Kim for the chronic food insecurity that years of sanctions and economic mismanagement have bought to North Korea.

But speaking too strongly against North Korea in China can have consequences. South Korea's Chosun Ilbo newspaper said on Monday that an editor at China's Study Times had been suspended for arguing in the Financial Times that China abandon North Korea.

Moscow has warned that heightened military activity on the Korean Peninsula was slipping into a vicious cycle, but senior Russian Foreign Ministry official Grigory Logvinov told the RIA news agency on Saturday: "At least at this point, we see that the statements (of Washington) are rather restrained. The position of the American side is a bit reassuring".....snip~

China's anger at North Korea overcomes worry over U.S. stealth flights

studying.gif
 
I'm not trying to predict what WILL happen... too many variables.

All I'm saying is that the risk of Kim Jong Un doing something the West would consider Irrational is real, and that NK missle/nuke capabilities may be more serious that many believe due to covert military aid from other nations.

That, and that it may not be as obvious to Un that he'd be defeated or nuked as people around here think it is.

I do think a US conventional air strike on all of Un's nuclear facilities is close to garunteed in my opinion. What he does in response and further conflict beyond that is a question mark.
 
Kim Jong Un has IMHO already done enough to justify a US military response. He's pointed missiles at American bases in Japan and Guam. He cut the line that allows emergency communications between North and South Korea. Last year he fired missiles at a South Korean residitial area killing innocent civilians seemingly for no other reason than to look tough/crazy. Before his rise to power his father ignored the international community and has successfully proliferated nuclear weapons, weapons Junior now possesses. Under treaty agreements, military actions against South Korea are considered attacks on the United States of America. Un has publically stated a state of war exists between North South Korea, translation: he declared war against America under US treaty obligations. The question is will he come to his senses and back up and/or will president Obama spank that A and treat North Korea as part axis of evil or ignore him? My observation is Obama talks a good game of peace and love when it comes to playing nice with homocidal maniacs but still kicks butt most of the time.

Not sure if I should even say this but I heard on relatively good authority troops scheduled for deployment in Afghanistan have had their orders cancelled 'in case they're needed elsewhere.' A new type of naval sea to surface battle ship never used before is now parked off the coast of North Korea.

No, you shouldn't say this. Loose lips sink ships.
 
Back
Top Bottom